By the sounds of what you and our BR friend are saying, Blizzard really needs to take into consideration they have other countries paying subs, not just USA.
Even if people are saying that monthly renewed subs aren’t changing, I still find this whole thing outrageous.
Ok.
Ten characters.
The problem with allowing for exchange rates is that they fluctuate on a daily basis.
Blizzard do have a set fee for Australian players, which makes it easier, but there are still a lot of countries that have to convert their currency into USD before they can pay for their game time, which often jacks up the price considerably.
same here in argentina, we went from $2.50 usd/month to $10usd for 2 months and thats without taxes
You’d think with the cash shop and game tokens y’all would at least find a semi-creative way to fleece the player base.
All this does is screw over people who farm to keep their sub active by buying tokens via the AH.
Clearly this is to force people to buy 60 day game time instead of 30 day so blizzard can make more money and Pat themselves in the back.
Not going to renew my sub when it runs out. Don’t want to waste $30+ on it.
This is unbelievable. We already pay an exorbitant amount to play this 15 year old game, and now we can’t even use blizzard balance to buy one month at a time when we have time to play? What’s wrong with you blizz??
Do you know if using prepaid credit cards for your monthly subscription still results in no automatic renewal ? That would be an easier option for people to use if they don’t want to be bothered with cancelling the monthly sub all the time.
But why should we have to do a work around for something that already exists?
I think that is what gets to people, outside of getting cash from lazy/forgetful people whos subs lapse there really is no justified reason for this.
The objective was clear…
I think you can still buy a token and convert it to one month of game time.
This change affects people who used the token to convert to Battle.net balance.
I am not directly affected since I’ve had a reoccurring 6 month subscription for longer than I can remember.
But I am indirectly affected by feeling like some corporate bean-counter is licking their fingers and players for granted – even if its players other than me.
(If nothing else, it reminds me that they take me for granted too. And maybe they can afford to… but unnecessary changes like this don’t exactly endear me to the brand.)
People are just trying to give Blizzard an excuse. There is nothing positive for the consumer with this change. I don’t understand why the shills choose to defend this hill.
Botters are going to buy 30 days of game time with a token. Likely that’s how they already operate anyway.
/boop /hug
Guess it’s time to shelve Blizzard for awhile and check out those single player games in your steam library.
I stopped playing through the Titanfall 2 campaign to start Shadowlands. If this isn’t a sign to go back and finish it, I don’t know what is.
I have an itch to play Grim Dawn. Also, Wreckfest.
It’s not a single player game, and is another MMORPG, but I’m considering whether to permanently make the switch to Lord of the Rings Online.
One thing I don’t understand is - why was this done?
Why does it matter if someone has the option to buy for 30 days rather than 60 days? What is the big deal? Is there a manual component in the system, where people are involved and it’s a wages issue? Surely it is all automated? You didn’t provide any reason for this being done so I have to wonder if the reason would be something the ‘customers’ would find unpalatable.
There are actually people out there who do not use credit/debit cards for whatever reason. It’s a bit like here in Australia - a number of banks are closing many of their branches in order to cut costs and the reason they give is that online and cashless transactions are more common. Yet we have an aging population who do not understand how to function online and need access to bank branches and real people to help them. It disadvantages a large percentage of the population in order to increase a bank’s bottom line.
Rather than reducing options for customers, a savvy business is better served by making it easier for their customers to do business. This move seems counter-intuitive to me.
The consensus seems to be that from a banking transaction fees perspective it was costing them money to have so many different payment options - so yes it is automated, but automation still costs money.
At the same time, it’s complete BS because if you’re going to streamline something to cut costs, you better do something to compensate your customers or you end up in situations like this.